United StatesDepartment of CooperativeAgricutture

Agricultural EducationCooperativeService

ACS Task Force:ServiceReport 35 Final Report

Task Force Members:

Agricultural Cooperative National Council of Farmer

Service Cooperatives

John R. Dunn

Kris R. GreenTracey L. Kennedy

Tammy M. Meyer

Galen W. RappJohn H. Wells

James R. Baarda

Dorothy J. Fisher

Jack H. Armstrong

Agricultural Cooperative Service

Service Report 35

July 1993

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Part I. A Vision for Cooperative Education ...................................... . l

Why Cooperative Education?. .................................................... 1

Better Cooperatives.. .......................................................... .2

Appreciation of Options ..................................................... .2

Business, Economic, and Public Policy Environment.. ........

What Is Cooperative Education?. .............................................. .3

The Vision for Cooperative Education.. ..................................... .5

Part II. Assessing the Present Environment .................................... .5

What Has Changed in the Environment for

Cooperative Education?. ............................................................ .

Existing Strengths ..................................................................... .9

Cooperative Education Tradition ........................................ .9

Institutions.. ........................................................................ 1 0

Resource Materials.. ......................................................... .l 0

Rural Revitalization ............................................................ 11

Renewed Public Interest in Education .............................. . l l

Who Are Cooperative Education Audiences?. ......................... 12

Elementary Students and Schools .................................... 12

High School Students and Schools .................................. .12

Universities, Students, and Researchers ......................... .14

Education Support Organizations.. ................................... .15

Cooperatives.. ................................................................... .16

Cooperative Members ....................................................... 16

Cooperative Directors.. ..................................................... .16

Cooperative Employees ................................................... .17

Other Audiences.. ............................................................. .17

State Cooperative Councils.. ............................................ .18

How Have Cooperative Audiences Changed? ....................... .18

Part III. identified System Needs ................................................... .20

Motivation and Funding ............................................................ 21

Motivation for Privately Conducted Education ................. .21

Funding for Privately Conducted Education.. ................... .22

Motivation for Public Education ......................................... 22

Funding for Public Education.. .......................................... .23

Sense of Cooperative Community.. .................................. .24

Technology and Materials ........................................................ 24

Audience-Specific Materials ............................................. .24

Availability of Materials ..................................................... .25

Technologies ...................................................................... 25

Part IV. Blueprint for Change .......................................................... 26

The Message of Cooperative Education.. .............................. ..2 7

What Are the Priorities for Change? ....................................... .28

How Can We Bring About the Necessary Changes? ............. .31

Part V. A Three-Front Plan for Strengthening

Cooperative Education ................................................................... 34

FRONT I: Making the Investment ........................................... .34

Update and Expand Materials Base.. ............................... .34

Educate the Educators ...................................................... 35

Performance-Related Research.. ..................................... .36

FRONT II: Improving National Coordination ........................... .36

FRONT III: Expanding the Base of Support.. .......................... .37

APPENDIX: STUDY PLAN AND PANEL PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Executive Summary

In 1991, a Task Force on Cooperative Education began a studyon improving the cooperative education system in the UnitedStates. In this joint study by USDA’s Agricultural CooperativeService (ACS) and National Council of Farmer Cooperatives(NCFC), information and opinions were gathered from coop-erative educators, organizations, and institutions throughoutthe Nation.

The Vision

From this study, the Task Force developed the following Visionfor Coopera tiue Edttca tion:

Every individual in the United States should have enough knowl-edge about the coopera tiue form of business enterprise to know itsgeneral distinguishing characteristics, to assess its appropriatenessto meet economic and socinl needs, and to recognize cooperatives’purposes and benefits. Every cooperative member should haveenough knowledge about the cooperative form of business enterpriseto know his or her responsibilities toward the cooperative and whatis expected in the way of control, finance, and patronage.

Three-Front Plan

The Task Force proposes a Three-Front Plan for bringingrenewal and regeneration to the cooperative education sys-tem. The plan involves making the upfront investment in edu-cational materials and infrastructure, improving national-levelcoordination, and aggressively marketing cooperative educa-tion to key educational decisionmakers.

FRONT I- Making the Investments involves redevelopment ofthe resource base- materials and human expertise-for pro-viding cooperative education. It calls for expanding, updating,and redesigning basic educational materials, establishing aprogram to educate the educators, and conducting a program

iv

of research on the performance of cooperative education pro-grams. An infusion of public and private resources is neces-sary to complete this critical base phase.

FRONT II- Improving Nafional Coordination involves develop-ing structures, functions, and modes of communicatitn toimprove coordination of the diverse components of the coop-erative education system. One aspect is the creation of anational clearinghouse for improving the widespread avail-ability and use of materials and programs.

FRONT III- Expanding the Base of Support involves establish-ing an aggressive marketing campaign directed at the leadersin cooperatives and educational institutions to demonstratethe value of investment in cooperative education. The cam-paign calls for one-on-one peer contacts using the results ofperformance-related research, knowledge of the improvedmaterials base, and a renewed national commitment to coordi-nation.

Other Findings and Highlights

Why Cooperative Education? Three primary purposes for coop-erative education were identified: (1) Setting the stage for suc-cessful cooperatives; (2) Providing everyone with enoughknowledge about the cooperative form of business enterpriseto make an informed assessment of a cooperative as an option;and (3) Providing sufficient understanding to responsibleindividuals and public policymakers to assure continued sup-port for the cooperative form of business enterprise.

The Changing Education Environment Over the past twodecades, the environment for cooperative education haschanged in several significant ways. These include changes inthe nature of cooperatives and cooperative business, audiencedemographics, resource constraints, philosophy of coopera-

V

tive leaders, public perception of the value of cooperative edu-cation, technological advances, and preference of many orga-nizations for investing in internal education programs.

How Have Cooperative Education Audiences Changed? A num-ber of changes in the audiences for cooperative educationwere no(ed: a decline in numbers of students with farm back-grounds; an aging member base of traditional agriculturalcooperatives; growth of urban audiences; growth in variety ofuses of cooperatives in non-agricultural settings; blurring ofthe distinction between rural and urban audiences, emergenceof self-interest as a motivating force; increased demands onthe time of both students and educators; increased technologi-cal sophistication; and questioning attitudes of the generalpopulace.

Strengths of the Present System The present system has severalstrengths that will be of value in the future. These include acontinuing widespread dedication to cooperative education, abasic institutional structure capable of implementing needededucational innovations and improvements, an array of mate-rials and programs currently available, public interest in therejuvenation of rural America, and renewed interest in publiceducation.

Little Overlap Found Contrary to common perceptions, theTask Force found little overlap in effort among the cooperativeeducation providers. In fact, there is a remarkable level ofcoordination and assignment or acceptance of roles. Mostorganizations or institutions serve specific and well-definedaudiences with specialized programs geared to those audi-ences.

What Message Should Cooperative Education Deliver? The basicorientation for cooperative education must be one of self-inter-est: How individual interests can be better served through

vi

group action. Recipients of cooperative education must beshown how the cooperative form of organization can personal-ly benefit them. Cooperatives must be presented as an effectiveorganizational option within the American business system.While many topics need to be covered within a complete coop-erative education program, they must be constantly linked backto cooperative principles in their most basic and easily under-stood form.

What Are Priorities for Changing Materials? Materials must beindividualized both in use and message, with a focus onhands-on activities and approaches. They must be adaptableto short learning periods. Messages must be simple and prac-tical. Control by the end-user, in terms of how and when thematerials are used, cannot be compromised. The core of mate-rials used in cooperative education will include traditionalwritten materials and visuals, videos, and software for per-sonal computers. These media and technologies are widelyavailable, highly adaptable, relatively simple to learn and use,and flexible in terms of the timing and duration of use.Providers of materials and programs should focus resourceson filling gaps in current offerings using these mainstreamtechnologies.

How Should Materials Be Targeted? Except for some special sit-uations, the basic content and materials for cooperative educa-tion are relatively well defined and developed. However,depending on a single format or presentation for a given topicwill not be sufficient in the future. Materials must meet theunique needs of specific audiences. Unless educational materi-als and programs carry the appropriate message to identifiedaudiences, the effectiveness of cooperative education will bediminished.

Who Will Be the Educators? Essential to cooperative educationis a core of educators knowledgeable in cooperatives and

vii

cooperative issues. An extensive investment in training thisvital educator core is required. Key educator groups should betargeted, including county or State Extension personnel, sec-ondary-level teachers of agricultural education, general busi-ness and social studies, university teachers in agribusinessand business, and education specialists within cooperatives.

Ag and Non-Ag Efforts Must Be Merged. The nearly automaticassignment of cooperative education by schools and universi-ties to agricultural departments or programs must change.Cooperatives are not limited to agriculture. The segregationbetween agricultural and non-agricultural cooperative educa-tion cannot be maintained. Bridges must be built betweenagricultural and other segments of our educational system.Collaborative research and curriculum development is alsorequired.

The National Materials Clearinghouse. Lack of knowledge ofavailability of materials and programs was repeatedly identi-fied as a problem constraining teaching of cooperative con-cepts. A central clearinghouse function is needed to collectand widely disseminate information and descriptions of coop-erative education tools, programs, and other resources avail-able from all segments of the cooperative community. The sys-tem would need to be constantly updated and includematerials relating to all types of cooperatives. A speakersbureau function could also be maintained. Funding, broad-based support, and cooperation will be necessary.

Elementary and Secondary School Programs. The primary goalof cooperative teaching in elementary and middle schools is tointroduce students to the term “cooperative” and show basicbenefits that may be achieved from cooperation. At the sec-ondary level, a fuller description of cooperatives is possible,as a part of business, economics, or social studies programs.Teaching techniques may include working examples,

VIII

practicums, and hands-on acquaintance with local coopera-tives. Any new burden upon public education systemsimposed by the addition of courses or units on cooperativeeducation competes for an already critically limited pool oftime and resources. Support for teacher training, purchase ofschool materials, and other support by cooperatives and theirassociations will be required. This approach has been used bycooperative organizations in some States to place ACS’“Understanding Cooperatives” in secondary schools. At theelementary school level, NCFC’s “Business in Our Town”could be handled the same way.

Llniversity Level Progmms. At the university level, cooperativetopics should be included in courses that address business,economics, management, accounting, or organizational sub-jects. In some instances, separate courses on cooperatives areappropriate. Expanded cooperative education at the universi-ty level will require more appropriate teaching materials,introduction into nonagricultural areas, and a major familiar-ization of faculty with the role and importance of cooperativebusinesses. Research is an integral part of the university edu-cational mission and should also be expanded beyond the tra-ditional agricultural economics curricula.

Youth and Educator Groups. Cooperative education planningmust involve the many organizations that support educationalinstitutions or groups of students, including adults. Examplesare FFA, 4-H, National Vocational Agricultural TeachersAssociation, National Association of County AgriculturalAgents, Ag in the Classroom, farm organizations, and variouscommittees on special areas of education. These organizationsare extremely active in the education of youth and play animportant role in establishing priorities in public school cur-riculum development.

ix

Education Within Cooperatives. Successful cooperatives haveleaders, members, and employees who understand their rolesand obligations within the cooperative setting. Directors arethe single most critical audience for cooperative education,because the survival of the cooperative depends on their abili-ty to make complex decisions in some very specialized areas.Employees must also understand the cooperative, becausethey are the primary direct contact with members. Only ifcooperatives themselves are committed will educational investmentsbe made and programs conducted and only then will the benefits ofeducation be realized by the cooperative.

Critical Role of Sta te Cooperative Councils. A considerableamount of cooperative educational work done outside indi-vidual cooperatives is conducted or facilitated by State coop-erative councils. State councils are uniquely positioned tocommunicate with and influence all parties to the cooperativeeducation process. Because of the critical role they play onbehalf of their own members in the cooperative community,State councils must be strongly supported and their needsgiven high priority.

How Can We Bring About the Necessary Changes? The basicchallenge is to induce those who should be involved withcooperative education to become involved. Individuals, insti-tutions, or cooperatives have the incentive to become involvedin cooperative education when it contributes to achievingtheir goals. Out of this, we define two strategies for increasinginvolvement in education: (1) establish, encourage, or other-wise promote the adoption of goals supportive of cooperativeeducation; or (2) demonstrate how cooperative education con-tributes to achieving existing goals.

Cooperatives Must Provide Support. Unless cooperatives them-selves are motivated to provide privately conducted educa-tion, whether by cooperatives themselves or through organi-

X

zations they fund, few other efforts will be successful.Motivation for cooperative education must be clear andstrong, or it will not be translated into funding for specificcooperative education projects and programs.

xi

Cooperative EducationTask Force: Final Report

PART I: A VISION FOR COOPERATIVE EDUCATION

Any set of ideas and prescriptions designed to inspireand guide must begin with a vision of what should exist at theend of the journey. The Task Force is guided by a vision ofcooperative education-what it should be at and after the turnof the century, and, more importantly, what changes would beseen in the educated populace as a result of cooperative edu-cation. We hope all involved in cooperative education seesome part of the vision in their work.

Why Cooperative Education?

What justifies spending precious resources on coopera-tive education? Why are individuals, organizations, and insti-tutions committed to education specifically about coopera-tives? What justifies a call for further cooperative educationefforts in the face of restricted resources at all levels of thebusiness and education communities?

Before a vision for cooperative education can be definedand justified, the purposes of cooperative education should beidentified and accepted with commitment. Full agreement byeveryone involved in cooperative education is not required.Each audience for and provider of cooperative education willhave its specific purposes. However, several overall purposesof cooperative education were identified in the task forcemeetings and deliberations. The more important purposes arelisted here. They define a mission for cooperative educationbroad enough to reflect many differing views of education,but specific enough to include the limited goals and focus ofhighly individual programs.

Better Cooperatives The character of the cooperativebusiness enterprise, based on the voluntary association ofindividuals with a common specific business or economicpurpose, places great responsibility on members, directors,and management to know the essential principles ofcooperatives and understand how principles translate intosuccessful cooperative decisionmaking and business conduct.Cooperatives cannot provide services and income to users,their primary purpose, unless they are operated in abusinesslike fashion with the full support of knowledgeablemembers, directors, and management.

One purpose of cooperative education, particularly that direct-ed to members, directors, management, and outside professionaladvisors, is to set the stage for successful cooperatives.

Appreciation of Options Without a knowledge of whatcooperatives are, how they operate, and what they can do forindividuals, those who have a need for goods and servicescannot assess the benefits of a cooperative business enterpriseas one of the ways they may meet their needs. While thegeneral population is aware of sole proprietorships,partnerships, and corporations as ways to organize andconduct business in a market economy, many have had littleor no exposure whatsoever to the cooperative businessenterprise. If individuals and businesses do not know whatcooperatives are, their structure, and what they do formembers, they will be limited in their search for ways tosatisfy economic needs.

A second purpose of cooperative education is to provide eve y-one with enough knowledge about the cooperative form of businessenterprise so they can to make at least a preliminary, informedassessment of the cooperative approach as a possible option.

Business, Economic, and Public Policy EnvironmentCooperatives, like all other businesses and institutions,operate within business, economic, and public policy

2

environments. These environments may be very specific as inthe case of a particular law regulating or governingcooperatives, or general as in the character of a market inwhich cooperatives function. In any case, environments maybe greatly affected by what is known and believed aboutcooperatives by business persons, the public, potential users,and public policymakers.

A third goal of cooperative education is to provide sufficientunderstanding to responsible individuals and public policymakers tobe sure the cooperative form of business enterprise is not disadvan-taged by lack of understanding.

What Is Cooperative Education?

For this report, cooperative education is defined as teach-ing that emphasizes understanding of the cooperative form ofbusiness enterprise. Cooperative education is the process bywhich we affect the relationship between the individual andthe cooperative organization in a way that supports andadvances the success of the cooperative endeavor. It is a set ofactivities, actions, and programs designed to enhance an indi-vidual’s knowledge of and attitudes toward cooperatives andthe use of a cooperative approach to solve economic, business,and social problems. Cooperative education is more than pro-motional or informational activities, job skills training, or gen-eral member relations activities. It is not simple, basic finan-cial or business strategy training, although in cooperativessuch training, by necessity, incorporates and implementscooperative principles and concepts. In fact, such training fre-quently provides the setting for cooperative education.Because training on many different subjects integrates cooper-ative ideas, those involved in such activities, in fact, carry outcooperative education.

Cooperative education activities and programs aredesigned to help individuals understand the unique princi-ples, structures, and practices that distinguish cooperative

3

organizations from other types of businesses and how thesecharacteristics translate into benefits for user-owners. Sincepreservation of these unique characteristics is necessary if theuser-owner benefits orientation of the cooperative is to bemaintained, cooperative education is necessary for any coop-erative organization.

The primary reasons for cooperative education are (1) tofacilitate, encourage, and foster the cooperative characteristicsof the organization and (2) to ensure a broad-based under-standing of the cooperative form of business as a recognizedorganizational option in a wide variety of circumstances.Cooperative education is essential to ensure that an organiza-tion continues to operate in a manner consistent with basiccooperative principles.

Cooperative education has three main components:1. Explain unique characteristics of the cooperative orga-

nizations compared with other forms of business organiza-tion,

2. Identify benefits derived from those unique character-istics, and

3. Guide decisions within the context of a cooperative’sunique characteristics, thereby preserving the benefits flowingfrom those characteristics.

Many types of educational activities conducted withinthe cooperative setting are called cooperative education.However, a distinction should be drawn between educationrelating strictly to the business operations of the cooperative,technical aspects of operations, and general laws and regula-tions affecting all businesses, and education regarding mattersunique to the cooperatives. Most cooperative education activi-ty includes both.

The conceptual separation of cooperative education fromother forms of training and education within an organizationshould in no way imply the need to separate cooperative edu-cation from the other education activities conducted by thefirm. In most cases, such a separation would be neither practi-

4

cal nor wise. Cooperative education can and should be trans-ported on the more general education vehicle. At the veryleast, it should be invited along for the ride.

The Vision for Cooperative Education

Where do we want cooperative education to be in thenear future? What do we seek as providers and financiers ofcooperative education? Given our goals for cooperative edu-cation, we establish this vision statement for cooperative edu-cation in the United States:

Every individual in the United States should haveenough knowledge about the cooperative form of busi-ness enterprise to know its general distinguishingcharacteris tics, assess its appropriateness to meet eco-nomic and social needs, and recognize cooperatives’purposes and benefits. Eve y cooperative membershould have enough knowledge about the cooperativeform of business enterprise to know his or her responsi-bilities toward the cooperative and what is expected inthe way of control, finance, and patronage.

This statement has as its corollaries a public and privatecommitment to cooperative education, school systems at alllevels geared to provide such information to students, andeducational materials widely distributed and appropriate to awide range of audience needs. These corollaries are evident inthe remaining discussion of cooperative education.

PART II: ASSESSING THE PRESENT ENVIRONMENT

What Has Changed in the Environment for CooperativeEducation?

In recent years, the environment for cooperative educa-tion has significantly changed in several ways. These includechanges in the nature of cooperatives and cooperative busi-

5

ness, audience demographics, resource constraints, philoso-phy of cooperatives leaders, public perception of the value ofcooperative education, technological advances, and the grow-ing preference of many organizations for investing in internalcooperative education programs.

Cooperatives have been forced by the competitive envi-ronment, financial institutions, and accepted business prac-tices to examine all activities and operations in terms of returnon investment. The definition of cooperative firms haschanged. Some differences between cooperative and noncoop-erative firms have become less distinct as cooperativesincreasingly become involved with nontraditional businessalliances, such as joint ventures among cooperatives and withinvestor-oriented firms. The way cooperative education isapproached and its value to the organization may have beenaffected by these developments.

Public resources devoted to cooperative education havediminished on nearly all fronts over the last two decades. Thistrend is related to demographic changes, budget crises at alllevels of government, and the resulting conversion of manyinstitutions to a focus on income-generating activities.

University involvement in teaching cooperative topicshas declined considerably While a few universities continueto offer full courses on cooperatives, many others havereplaced full courses with segments of courses devoted to thetopic. Where there were segments, there now may be nothing.University faculty with cooperative expertise-typically mar-keting or agribusiness specialists-are not being replaced asthey retire. Rather, their staff positions are being reassigned toother, more visible fields within the universities. Publicschools, especially with agricultural education curricula, aredevoting less to cooperatives as the agricultural student basedeclines. As with universities, specialized expertise in cooper-atives is not being replaced. No adequate, concerted effort isunderway to bring that training to present agricultural educa-tion teachers.

6

Within the public school and university system, empha-sis on cooperatives has been generally confined to the agricul-tural components of the education system. General businesseducation has rarely included cooperatives as a component oftheir curriculum or a topic within their courses. Emphasis onthe investor-owned firm structure is increasingly favored overother forms of business. Thus, while we have witnessed anincreasing interest in pursuing business education, particular-ly at the MBA level, cooperative topics have been bypassed.

Resources devoted by cooperatives to cooperative educa-tion is more problematic. Much of the so-called “cooperativeeducation” is, in fact, general orientation, business training,technical training, job skills training, or member and publicrelations. Because the term “cooperative education” is oftenused to mean training different from that discussed in thisreport, the amount of cooperative funds devoted to such edu-cation is unknown. Of some concern has been the apparent“internalization” of cooperative education investment bycooperatives. Cooperatives may be devoting a smaller portionof their expenditures on education to programs offered byoutside groups involved with cooperative education, such asthe State cooperative councils or national groups providingeducational services, although this, too, is difficult to assess.The reasons for this internalization of cooperatives’ educationexpenditures are many and varied, yet, two themes are domi-nant-the desire to control the timing, content, and presenta-tion of programs and materials; and the loss of a sense of com-munity and common interest in education among the Nation’scooperatives. With the extremely difficult adjustments facedby cooperatives during the 198Os, the concepts of investmentin the long-run health of the cooperative community viainvestment in education were often dominated by the need tomerely survive.

These trends have caused many institutions and organi-zations involved in cooperative education to struggle for sur-vival as well. An atmosphere of competition has created the

7

appearance, to some observers, that there is considerableoverlap and duplication of efforts by different providergroups and institutions. Such observations, the Task Forcefound, are decidedly untrue. There is little overlap in effortamong the cooperative education providers. In fact, there is aremarkable level of coordination and assignment or accep-tance of roles. Most organizations or institutions serve specificand well-defined audiences and specialized programs gearedto those audiences. Thus, while many groups are involved inthe general area of cooperative education, there is very littleoverlap in function between the groups. Although there con-tinues to be room for improvement in coordination, the coop-erative education community shares a common purpose.Where stresses exist between providers, it is more a functionof each group struggling to remain financially able to serve inits accepted and defined role, rather than a result of groupsattempting to expand their roles into other areas. For groupsfinancially capable of expanding, there remain many voids orgaps to be filled in the cooperative education market.

Information technologies have changed rapidly.Cooperative educators must compete with numerous othermedia and messages. Computer and video technologies havecompletely reshaped the methods and strategies for reachingcontemporary audiences. Information technologies and tech-nologically based formats have evolved so rapidly that often aparticular system is obsolete before most of the mainstreampopulation has been introduced to it.

This presents significant challenges to educators anddevelopers of educational materials. With a movement back tothe educational basics and limited resources available, thesegroups must carefully choose materials in which to invest.They must invest in durability in an atmosphere that can easi-ly render their choices wrong. Educators cannot afford to behighly experimental as they chose appropriate method for theaudience and the subject.

Social change and economic pressures have directedcooperative leaders toward a more technocratic and bottom-line orientation. For many, cooperative education has becomea tool for improving sales or calming a restive membership.Within the education sector, a similar shift is seen. Much ofthe philosophical driving force behind cooperative educationhas been supplanted by a pragmatic allocation of limitedresources to areas of most immediate and measurable payoff.Recognition of and adaptation to this trend by providers ofeducational materials and programs are essential.

Existing Strengths

The environment for cooperative education, however, isnot bleak. Response to cooperative education needs shouldbuild upon the present foundation. Several key strengths areidentified as a starting point for much of the Task Force’sencouragement, strengths that may be tapped in every futureeducation activity.

Cooperative Education Tradition Cooperatives in thiscountry, particularly in agriculture, bring a long andillustrious tradition of cooperative education. This tradition ismaintained in institutions and among individuals andcooperatives who have been part of cooperative education.Recognition continues among many within the cooperativecommunity that cooperative education is of true importanceto the long-term interests of cooperative organizations. Theneed to increase investment in cooperative education isgenerally accepted, and the dedication to cooperativeeducation by many cooperative leaders is real and focused.One of the major, but unmeasurable strengths upon which anycontinuing cooperative education thrust can draw iswidespread dedication to it. Institutions, cooperativeorganizations, and individuals contain a collective pool ofcommitment. Although not always expressed, and often

9

diminished by lack of funding or facilitating support, thisinterest should not be neglected. We should not wax nostalgicupon the days when cooperative education had highervisibility and a greater number of people involved inprograms, institutions, and within cooperatives. Manydeclines in cooperative educational resources are recentenough that dedication remains, and renewal can occur underthe right circumstances and with the right incentives.

lnsfitutions The Task Force found a basic institutionalstructure, public and private, capable of implementing needededucational innovations or improvements. This is not to saychanges aren’t required, but it does indicate that muchgroundwork for effective education is in place to makerevitalization possible, permitting educators to concentrate ondeveloping programs rather than on the laborious task ofestablishing new institutions.

Public education institutions include school systems ofall kinds. The challenge is not to create entirely new struc-tures, but to inject cooperative education into existing sys-tems. Other public institutions provide support and servicesfor cooperatives. The challenge for these institutions is toadapt to the continually changing educational needs of thecooperative community and the general public.

Institutions used for cooperative education by privateproviders include State cooperative councils and nationalorganizations with educational missions. All have educationaltraditions and are capable of responding to current and devel-oping needs in cooperative education, given support anddirection.

Those dedicated to improving cooperative education can look tomany existing institutions as a strength from which to expand.

Resource Materials The extensive discussions of the needfor more and different educational materials in the Task ForceReport should not obscure the fact that one of the strengths of

10

the present cooperative education “system” is the collection ofmaterials and array of programs now available or soon to bemade available. Some of these are noted by way of example indiscussion of resources and needs for specific audiences,summarized below. Institutions, cooperatives, and schoolsystems need not start from scratch. The challenge for thosewho prepare materials or conduct programs is to be sure allavailable information is used, and then take the most efficientsteps to expand its usefulness.

Cooperative education can, without long delay, draw upon thework already done in preparation of cooperative materials, incorpo-rating as it does to varying degrees, the substance, design, and cre-ativity of educators at many diflerent levels of education. This basecan be used to prepare other information, materials, and programs asneeded.

Rural Rejuvenation The growth of public awareness andinterest in the rejuvenation of rural America and the ruraleconomy presents a strong argument for a major cooperativeeducation initiative. The cooperative form of business is ahighly effective method for accomplishing many ruraldevelopment goals. This method stresses self-help and citizeninvolvement and investment.

Renewed Public Interest in Education Renewed publicinterest in education should be viewed as an opportunity forinjecting new cooperative education initiatives into the schoolsystems. It is an opportunity to broaden the audience beyondthe strictly agricultural focus of the past. As attention is turnedto the store of knowledge our young persons should be given to liveproductive andfulfilling lives, a knowledge of cooperative businessenterprise should be an essential part of the public educationagenda. Any new funding sources or redirection of emphasison subjects should be monitored closely and, where possible,be influenced to include cooperative education.

11

Who Are Cooperative Education Audiences?

Educational goals, techniques, materials, and fundingdiffer according to recipients. Task Force panelists emphasizedthe need to design activities for each audience. Educatorsthemselves may also be audiences. The Task Force has identi-fied the major audiences of cooperative education. Specialneeds and the current status of materials and programs appro-priate to each audience are addressed later.

Elementary-Level Students and Schools Elementary andmiddle school students can learn the basics of cooperation inconnection with several subjects within the curriculum. Atthis level, the primary goal is to introduce students to the term“cooperative” and show elementary benefits that may beachieved from cooperation in an organized business.Cooperatives are best described in a setting in which studentslearn about the ways we do business in a market economy.

The schools (school systems, administration, and teach-ers) themselves are audiences for cooperative education. Inmost cases, school personnel must be taught about coopera-tives. Further, materials are needed for effective teaching, and,as recipients, teachers and others are audiences for whom spe-cially designed efforts must be made.

Little cooperative education is conducted in elementaryschools (all levels prior to high school). Some material is avail-able to support cooperative education, but is of a localizednature. A teaching resource package, including a new videoon four ways of doing business, called “Business in OurTown,” is available from the National Council of FarmerCooperatives. It serves most needs for basic teaching materi-als. Direct assistance from cooperatives will be necessary toplace these and other appropriate materials in local schools.

Secondary-Level Students and Schools AS withelementary education, both high school students and schools

12

are audiences for cooperative education. A greater amount ofcooperative education is present in high schools, althoughmostly limited to agricultural education programs. At thislevel, a fuller description of cooperatives is possible withingeneral business, social studies, or economic classes. Effectiveteaching techniques include working examples, practicums,and hands-on acquaintance with local cooperatives. Highschool students often focus on specific areas of interest.Cooperative subjects may be tailored to special programs,such as vocational agricultural programs. However, studentsin all programs are suitable for cooperative education.

The greatest challenge for cooperative education in ele-mentary and secondary schools is motivating school systemsto include cooperative topics. Three considerations will deter-mine its success.

First, any material or encouragement for cooperativeeducation must fit into a school system’s curriculum.Curriculum requirements should be studied for each schoolsystem to see how cooperative education can best be adopted.Within this context, teachers must be given enough informa-tion and supporting material so they can teach the elementswith limited preparation.

Second, the instigation of education must also be target-ed to those most likely to influence its acceptance and imple-mentation. Whether the primary targets are teachers, localadministration, or State administration will depend upon eachState’s characteristics. For the most part, the main burden ofencouraging cooperative education will fall on cooperatives inthe local area.

Third, a major effort will be required to expand coopera-tive education at the high school level beyond agriculture. Thevision for cooperative education suggests such an expansion,but the separation of many agricultural programs from theremainder of the system makes transfer difficult in most situa-tions. Support for teacher training, purchase of educational

13

materials, and other support may be required to follow up onmotivating cooperative education.

Cooperatives and their associations will bear the burdenof this support. The ACS self-contained course“Understanding Cooperatives” fills the need for innovativeeducation at this level. With the support and encouragementof cooperatives and State councils, units of “UnderstandingCooperatives” have been placed in secondary schools in sev-eral States. Continued and expanded support of this nature isneeded.

In summary, cooperative education will only be included inthe public school systems if individuals within the system are con-vinced of its value in the general curriculum, appropriate materialsare available, and widespread and intensive efforts are made by coop-eratives and their associations to support and implement its adop-tion.

Universities, Students, and Researchers In most cases,cooperative education at the university level is tiedspecifically to course work. Not all majors require courses inwhich cooperative topics are appropriate. However,cooperative topics should be included in courses that addressbusiness, economics, management, accounting, ororganizational subjects. In some instances, separate courses oncooperatives are appropriate. The level of presentation will, ofcourse, vary widely depending on the course level andpurpose. Cooperative education is also needed in graduateand professional schools.

Research is usually considered to be an integral part ofthe university educational mission. University researchers areaudiences for material on cooperatives and they, in turn, gen-erate products that can become integrated into teaching roles.As in teaching, university research on cooperatives should beexpanded beyond the traditional agricultural economics cur-ricula.

Cooperative education at the university level varies fromentire courses to no coverage at all. For the most part, cooper-ative topics are covered only in the agricultural schools andnot as part of more general business, accounting, and econom-ic curricula. Teaching materials on cooperatives are limited,save for individual interest by professors, to the textbook,Cooperatives in Agriculture.

Expanded cooperative education at the university levelwill require more suitable teaching materials, introductioninto nonagricultural areas, and a major familiarization of fac-ulty with the role and importance of cooperative businesses.

Teaching materials must be tailored to course work. Theneed for a full text on cooperatives is limited, because seldomwill a full course on cooperatives be offered outside agricul-ture. Under ideal circumstances, each textbook on business,economics, or other related subjects would contain material oncooperatives that is relevant to the text subject. Lacking that,short addenda to existing texts may be appropriate. Resourcematerials on cooperative topics that can be incorporated intomore general courses must be made more widely available.

The challenge is, as with other school systems, to moti-vate the university system to include cooperative topics aspart of its instructional system. Also as with other school sys-tems, the burden will fall on cooperatives themselves, workingthrough whatever channels are appropriate in the system to expresstheir desires for cooperative education.

Funding is important, particularly in research. If cooper-atives expect cooperative research to occur, they must deter-mine how to support the educational system and researcher tomake that resource commitment possible.

Education Support Organizations Cooperative educationplanning must involve the many organizations that supporteducational institutions or groups of students, includingadults. Examples are FFA, 4-H, National VocationalAgricultural Teachers Association, National Association of

15

County Agricultural Agents, Ag in the Classroom, farmorganizations, and various committees on special areas ofeducation. These organizations are extremely active in theeducation of youth and play an important role in establishingpriorities in public school curriculum development. They alsobecome audiences for cooperative education depending uponwhat they do for educators, schools systems, or students.

Cooperatives Cooperatives, themselves, are audiences forcooperative education when they engage an educationalactivity and establish a demand for materials, programs,courses, or funding. Cooperatives’ educational activities andtheir needs vary widely. As examples, cooperatives may havedirector, member, and young farmer programs; participate inyouth programs; distribute information about cooperatives;participate in State cooperative council activities; or haveprograms designed for public information about cooperatives.

Cooperative Members Successful cooperatives typicallyhave members who understand their obligations to thecooperative in governance or control, financial obligations,and patronage. An appreciation for these obligations isconveyed through educational activities. The narrower subjectof cooperative education, the special characteristics ofcooperative business enterprises, is often combined withmarketing information and programs aimed at developingloyalty and expressing benefits to members. Education formembers depends on the cooperative’s specific membereducation goals. Members may receive education through thecooperative itself or programs associated with outside groupsor through more general educational activities. In either case,cooperative members are a distinct audience for education.

Cooperative Directors Cooperative businesses place specificand unique responsibilities on directors. Because of theirimportance for the survival of cooperatives and their highly

16s

specialized training needs, directors are a critical audience forcooperative education. However, director training needs arenot all the same. While some skills, knowledge, and duties arecommon to all cooperatives, specific needs depend oncooperative size, complexity, type of business, and structure.In addition, cooperatives vary widely in their commitment todirector education. Directors may receive education at a rangeof levels from a variety of providers.

Programs for directors vary widely in complexity, sophis-tication, and level of attendance. Many cooperatives draw onoutside education such as State cooperative councils, the uni-versity system, and national organizations to conduct pro-grams.

Two motivational needs exist for director education. Thefirst is at the cooperative level. Some cooperatives are heavilycommitted to educating directors; others are not. Many direc-tors are eager to attend educational programs, while othersnever spend the time or effort to attend. Only ifcooperativesthemselves (the directors as policymakers) are committed to directoreducation will it be conducted and the benefits of educated directorsbe realized.

Cooperative Employees Cooperative employees work for aunique organization. Their effectiveness may be increasedsubstantially if they fully understand that uniqueness and actaccordingly. Some cooperatives go to great lengths to providethis education. Others make little effort to distinguish theirorganization from any other. The variation in employeeeducation is great, depending on the type and wishes of theindividual cooperative. Cooperatives must identify the uniquecharacteristics of their organization as a subject for employeeknowledge and training.

Other Audiences A range of other audiences with specialneeds for cooperative education may include policymakers,professional specialists such as accountants and lawyers, and

17

the general public. Each presents special challenges in howthey are reached and what form educational programs andmaterials should take.

State Cooperative Councils Considerable cooperativeeducation work outside individual cooperatives is conductedor facilitated by State cooperative councils. Within the groupof State councils, a wide range of educational methods,funding, and audiences exists. It is not possible to identify anyuniform need for educational materials or programs bycouncils. However, because of the role they play on behalf oftheir members in the cooperative community, needs of Statecooperative councils as an audience for cooperative educationefforts by others is given high priority.

How Have Cooperative Education Audiences Changed?

A number of changes in the audiences for cooperativeeducation were noted during the course of Task Force deliber-ations. Generally, they relate to numbers of participants with-in each audience, changes in the backgrounds of recipients,changing attitudes and expectations, and competition for indi-viduals’ time for educational activities.

One significant change in the audience for cooperativeeducation relating to farmer cooperatives is the decline in thesize of a traditional primary audience-students from farmbackgrounds. The number of farm students entering variousagricultural or agribusiness fields of study has clearlydeclined. However, there is a continued interest in agriculturaland food system topics by students with nonfarm back-grounds. The typical agricultural student of the past may havehad some association with the cooperative idea through his orher farm family’s involvement. The typical urban or nonfarmstudent has no such familiarity.

Demographic changes are in evidence among agricultur-al cooperatives. The membership base of the traditional agri-

18

cultural cooperatives is aging. The generation moving intocontrol of the farming sector lacks the zeal for cooperatives,patience for long-run benefits, or knowledge of what marketsmay be like without cooperatives.

Urban audiences have grown and with them, use ofcooperatives in their daily lives. However, outside of the edu-cation within some consumer, housing, and other organiza-tions, the nonfarm audience is largely untouched by coopera-tive education. Cooperatives have never been a part of anygeneral curriculum. The audience among urban and nonfarmindividuals is large. Their needs for cooperative education aremore varied than for the traditional recipient. The broad rangeof circumstances under which cooperatives may be used, widerange of membership interests, and greater variety of formssuch cooperatives may take, distinguish this audience groupfrom the traditional farmer audience.

Overall, characteristics of the typical audience memberfor cooperative education have changed considerably-lessfarm or rural and more nonfarm or urban; less farm, morenon-farm. Further, the distinction between the rural and urbancomponents of the audience, as well as between geographicdivision, has been blurred. For all the diversity in the UnitedStates, common cultural exposure and experience have grown,largely a result of the influence of a common media and enter-tainment system. Nationally, the 15-to-30 year old group ofresidents is extremely small, resulting in overcapacity in oureducation system. This will be somewhat alleviated with theaging of the so-called “second baby boomlet.” But, this willlikely bring some fundamental changes in education philoso-

PhY.The typical audience member for cooperative education

presents a greater challenge to the educator. Self-interest ismore dominant than the common good philosophy tradition-ally associated with cooperative efforts. For cooperative edu-cation, this needs to be recognized, accepted, and accommo-dated.

19

The greatest challenge in reaching most potential audi-ences for cooperative education is winning the competition forthe individual’s time in our school systems-both the studentand teacher. People have increasing demands on their timeand less willingness to commit large blocks of time to any par-ticular endeavor. Many have argued that the problems associ-ated with this unwillingness is compounded by a decliningattention span. Thus, educators are challenged with problemsof both willingness and ability for certain types of educationalactivity.

Similar challenges face nonstudents. Employees, mem-bers, and directors have limited time for educational activities.Each program must compete effectively with myriad otheractivities.

The contemporary audience is more technologicallyadvanced. It expects technology to make things interestingand encourage them to be involved. It wants technology totake the drudgery out of learning. It associates informationtechnology with entertainment and fun.

Finally, the contemporary audience is questioning, some-times to the point of being cynical. Any effective cooperativeeducation program must be of the highest quality, based onproof, not promises, explanation, not preaching. The changesin audience characteristics are mirrored in the changing char-acteristics of educators themselves. Teaching tools must bedesigned with the needs and traits of both the students andeducators in mind.

PART III: IDENTIFIED SYSTEM NEEDS

Each audience and cooperative education provider hascertain specialized requirements. Many were identified in thesurveys and panel discussions. They are detailed in the fol-lowing sections of this report.

However, several “system” needs were identified anddiscussed during the Task Force’s study. These were usually

20

expressed as general concerns or goals for the overall coopera-tive education effort in the United States.

From these discussions, it was evident that the currentstate of cooperative education contains some strengthsthrough which continuing and future cooperative educationcan be invigorated. These may be specific to audiences orproviders or more general.

Motivation and Funding

Several needs were identified as concerns for most audi-ences and providers. They included concerns for general sup-port for cooperative education and indicated the need todevote more resources to cooperative education. If the visionof cooperative education is to be fulfilled, these broader needsmust be met.

Motivation for Private/y Conducted Education “Privatelyconducted education” refers to cooperative educationconducted by cooperatives themselves or throughorganizations they fund, such as national organizationsinvolved in cooperative education or State cooperativecouncils. The education may be directed toward thecooperatives and their associated audiences (members,directors, management, employees) or may be broadereducational activities. In any case, such education will not beconducted without the commitment of cooperativesthemselves. The level of commitment will depend onmotivation. The motivation for privately conducted educationis based on differing views of education and its role in thesuccess of cooperatives. Some of the historic support forcooperation has been lost with the passing of the generationswhose survival depended upon cooperatives. Also lost wasthe commitment to cooperative education that necessarilyaccompanied that zeal. Motivation, often based onprofitability calculations, has been lacking where the benefits

21

of cooperative education were not clearly articulated orproven.

A high level of cooperative education, supported bycooperatives, requires considerable motivation. The TaskForce heard calls for renewed dedication to cooperative edu-cation and a focus at the cooperative level on motivation forproviding or supporting it.

The consensus was that unless cooperatives themselves aremotivated to provide privately conducted education themselves orthrough organizations they fund, few other efforts will be successful.

Funding for Privately Conducted Education Closelyassociated with motivation is the need for funding ofprivately conducted cooperative education. Without funds,little can be done. Funding for these programs comes almostexclusively from resources dedicated to that purpose bycooperatives themselves. Programs and materials comedirectly from the cooperative. Educational activitiesconducted by State cooperative councils or nationalorganizations are funded by cooperatives through dues orfees.

The Task Force saw the close connection between motiva-tion and funding. Motivation for cooperative education must beclear and strong, or it won‘t be translated into funding for specificcooperative education projects and programs. In addition, motiva-tion by various participants will determine where and forwhat purpose funds will be supplied.

Motivation for Public Education Public education thatincludes cooperative concepts, at all levels of the public schoolsystem, will not exist without a motivating force to be surecooperative topics are included in subjects at appropriatetimes.

Any effort to encourage public education systems toinclude cooperative topics must be tailored to things relevantto the school system. School systems have broad missions

22

around which their activities and course work is designed.The value of cooperative education must be demonstrated inthe context of how public education systems work, what theirgoals are, and what they need in return.

While the overall value of cooperative education may bebroadly stated, efforts in schools to encourage cooperativeeducation must be carefully directed within each system. Thisincludes subject matter and persons to contact. Cooperativeeducation must correspond to particular subject matter cov-ered within a school system’s curriculum. It must be shownhow cooperative education relates to specific topics the schoolis required to teach and how cooperative education materialsor programs satisfies those specific needs.

At the same time, the public value of cooperative educa-tion must be demonstrated. In some systems the importanceof the cooperative form of business enterprise may be evident.In most, however, it will be necessary to educate the systemabout the importance of cooperatives and, more directly, theimportance of cooperative education to the general studentpopulation.

Finally, public education on cooperatives will not takeplace unless cooperatives convince the public that it should bepart of the public education system. Motivation and encour-agement must come from cooperatives, individually andthrough appropriate organizations.

Without private commitment to cooperative education and itstransfer to the public, cooperative education will not find a signifi-cant place in the American public school systems.

Funding for Public Education Any new burden on publiceducation systems imposed by the addition of cooperativeeducation courses or units competes for an already criticallylimited pool of time and resources. If cooperative topics are tobe added, the public education systems’ predicament must berecognized and alternatives that adapt to and accommodatethese limitations explored.

23

Although direct contribution by cooperatives to fundpublic education on cooperatives is limited, alternatives mayinclude providing materials to school systems at cooperatives’expense to avoid additional direct outlays by the public. Thisapproach has been successfully used by cooperative organiza-tions in some States where ACS’s “UnderstandingCooperatives” has been placed in secondary schools. A similarapproach at the elementary school level with NCFC’s“Business in Our Town” is recommended. In addition, materi-als and subject matter may be designed so that other relatedschool system needs are met at the same time cooperative top-ics are included. Packages that cover general business subjectsfor the system, for instance, could include cooperative sub-jects.

Acknowledgement of the limited public resources available forcooperative education must be part of any plan to include the subjectin public education systems at any level.

Sense of Cooperative Community In all discussion panelmeetings, panelists indicated that cooperative education willbe strengthened immeasurably if all types of cooperativesrecognize their common interest and the collective benefitreceived from effective cooperative education. Althoughvariation exists in emphasis, forums, and purposes ofeducation among types of cooperatives, a great common coreof educational principles, needs, and benefits was found. Onlyif the sense of community in cooperative education is clearlyidentified and tapped will the full vision of cooperativeeducation be within reach.

Technology and Materials

Audience-Specific Materials Except for some specializedsituations, the basic content and materials for cooperativeeducation are well defined and have been developed in manyways over the years. However, any program, set of materials,

24

or other activity involving cooperative education must betailored to the individual audience and circumstances, as wellas to the individual instructor. Who provides the neededresources and how finely honed the packages should bedepends on needs and circumstances. Unless educationalmaterials and programs are designed to carry appropriatemessages to identified audiences and education providers, thevalue of cooperative education will be diminished.

Availability of Materials In addition to educational materialsdesigned for varied audiences and education providers,panelists and survey respondents emphasized thatappropriate materials should be widely available.

Material should be both available and easily accessible sorequests can be quickly filled. This suggests pools of availablematerials ready for use under a wide variety of circumstances.When materials are accessible, both duplication and the perunit cost of producing materials are reduced.

In summary, easily accessible material on cooperative educa-tion will not only increase the ease and efficiency of existing ecluca-tional activities, but also facilita te new programs.

Technologies and Media The Task Force heard considerablediscussion about the need to use the best technology availablefor contemporary cooperative education. But, the mostadvanced technology may not always be the mostappropriate.

The core of materials used in cooperative education willinclude written materials and visuals, videos, and computer-based packages for personal computers. These materials willstand alone or be packaged in integrated teaching modules.Educators and students alike will avoid technologies thatrequire a substantial investment in learning the technology.While the Task Force believes more sophisticated technologiesprovide potential for creating innovative and exciting teach-ing materials and methods, it is essential at this juncture to

25

focus resources on doing a complete job with a given set ofmainstream technologies. Advances in educational technologiesshould not be mistaken for advances in education. Emphasis shouldbe placed on quality media and technologies that are widely avail-able, highly adaptable, relatively simple to learn and use, and com-pletelyflexible in terms of the timing and duration of use.

Filling the gaps in current offerings of these mainstreamtechnologies should be the primary developmental effort ofmaterial and program designers. Many topics and audiencesremain untouched in terms of video presentation. Use of sim-ulations and computer game approaches are just beginning todemonstrate their usefulness. At the same time, materialdevelopers should keep abreast of new and emerging devel-opments in media technology.

PART IV. BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE

To make the necessary changes occur, the Task Force pro-poses a long-term strategy for revitalizing the national effortin cooperative education. It is designed to gradually changethe present trends and establish momentum toward greatercommitment and improve effectiveness in our cooperativeeducation programs.

The blueprint for an improved cooperative educationprogram has three strategic dimensions: preparation, provi-sion, and promotion. We need to prepare our cooperatives,institutions, and educational professionals to meet the train-ing needs of tomorrow. Cooperatives, their organizations, andsupporting organizations must provide the materials and pro-grams to make sure this training happens. The concepts andimportance of cooperative education must be promoted tothose who can influence its adoption.

Segregation of cooperative education between its agricul-tural and nonagricultural components cannot be maintained.The agricultural parts of the cooperative education systemhave led the way in promoting public programs for coopera-

26

tive education, but this history has left much of the presentsystem isolated from and out of touch with the needs of thenonagricultural component of the cooperative communityNonagricultural cooperatives, while generally strong on coop-erative education within individual organizations, need tosupport and promote cooperative education in the publicarena.

The Message of Cooperative Education

The basic orientation for cooperative education must beone of self-interest: Serving individual interests through groupaction. Recipients of cooperative education must be shownhow the cooperative form of organization can benefit thempersonally and be meaningful in their daily lives.

An essential message in all levels of cooperative educa-tion is the role played by cooperatives within the contempo-rary business system. Cooperatives must be presented as anorganizational option within the American business systemwith some specific attributes and applications. Cooperativesmust be presented as a method for solving economic prob-lems...a tool for making things happen. Audiences must beshown how cooperative business principles can be applied totheir individual situations.

Cooperative principles provide the primary message forcooperative education. While many topics should be present-ed within a complete education on cooperatives, the messageshould be constantly tied back to principles in a form that isclear and easily understood.

The user- and member-driven focus of the cooperativeform of business must be maintained. User responsibility indecisionmaking, planning, financing, and control must alwaysbe stressed.

27

What Are the Priorities for Change?

Materials must be designed to meet the needs of specificaudiences or types of audiences. Recipients of cooperativeeducation will quickly lose interest in materials not sharplyfocused to their individual requirements or circumstances.What this means for material developers and providers is thatdepending on a single presentation or a specific topic will notbe sufficient. If, for example, the topic is director rights andresponsibilities, different versions should be developed forseveral audiences, including directors, managers, youth, andmembers. Each version should present a different perspective,with examples and details designed for that perspective.

Materials must be individualized both in use and in mes-sage. Distance learning, small group methods, or one-on-onelearning will be of increasing importance in some circum-stances. Materials and systems that constrain theeducator/facilitator or the audience in terms of timing or con-tent will lose out to those that don’t. Materials and programsmust be built using technologies that allow the individualuser to have complete control over the timing or schedule ofuse. Dependence on linkages to larger systems is undesirable.

Material and program developers must focus on hands-on activities and approaches. Case studies, computer games,simulations, contests, and other approaches that get educationrecipients involved are favored. Many concepts are besttaught within the context of real problems and situations.Strictly theoretical presentations have little appeal.

Materials and programs must adapt to short learningperiods. Messages must be simple and practical. Programsmust be segmented to make them easy to pick up and putdown. The end-user must maintain maximum control.

An important part of improving the materials and pro-grams available for cooperative education involves moderniz-ing the images. Materials need to reflect a contemporary viewof daily life, business, and agriculture, avoiding sexist andstereotypical images.

28

Many organizations, especially cooperatives, want mate-rials that carry their logos or are specific to their individualorganizations. This suggests a strategy of developing sets ofbase materials that can be adapted and reproduced by indi-vidual groups. Adaptation guides to suit specific audiences orpurposes should be an integral part of the basic sets.

Essential to the widespread growth of cooperative educa-tion is a core of educators knowledgeable in, and capable ofproviding training on cooperatives and cooperative issues. Anextensive effort in training this vital educator core is required.This effort will represent the primary investment in the coop-erative education infrastructure-the investment in humancapital. Four key educator groups can be targeted for thistraining or retraining effort: County or State extension person-nel; secondary-level teachers of agricultural education; gener-al business and social studies, university teachers in agribusi-ness and business; and education specialists withincooperatives.

The nearly automatic assignment by schools and univer-sities of cooperative education to agricultural departments orprograms must change. Cooperatives are not limited to agri-culture. Bridges must be built between agricultural and othersegments of our educational system, especially in the fields ofbusiness, economics, and sociology. Collaborative researchand curriculum development is required.

A major challenge facing both providers and users ofeducation materials is bringing the two groups together.Knowledge of availability of material and programs wasrepeatedly identified as a problem constraining the teachingof cooperative concepts. In part, this is a problem of materialssimply not being offered for certain types of audiences.However, it appears that the larger problem is an institutionalone. Materials are available, yet their availability has not beensufficiently promoted.

The need to improve awareness of the range of educa-tional tools and programs available throughout the country

29

and to increase widespread access to tools and programs willrequire a concentrated effort by organizations and institutionsinvolvedein the production and distribution of cooperativeeducation materials. The current approach is fractionalizedand incomplete, operated by each producer/provider, eachreaching out to specific segments of the total audience. Thefull system of material production and distribution lacks coor-dination and leaves many audiences and potential audiencesinadequately served. As a result, some audiences are missedwhile other efforts are duplicated. The distribution of materi-als is incomplete.

A national coordinating clearinghouse is needed. Thepurpose of the proposed clearinghouse would be to collectinformation and descriptions of cooperative education tools,programs, and other resources available from all segments ofthe cooperative community. The information would be readilyavailable to all cooperatives, educational institutions, andorganizations involved in cooperative education. An on-linecomputerized database system could be used to catalogueexisting tools, programs, and materials, receive information ofnew offerings as they become available, and publicize theavailability of materials. Most important, the proposed systemwould enable cooperative education providers to scan thecomplete set of offerings to determine the existence of materi-als or programs suiting their needs and assist in obtainingthem.

The clearinghouse could also provide a speaker bureaufunction. The list of available quality speakers for a range oftopics and audiences could be maintained, providing manycooperatives and educators with a ready source of the type ofpresenters they need for their educational programs.

Two requirements are absolutely essential to the viabilityof the clearinghouse that includes participation by all compo-nents of the cooperative community. First, the system wouldneed to be constantly updated to ensure that at any point intime, all that is available will be on the system. Second, merely

30

focusing on one component, such as agricultural cooperatives,would partially duplicate some existing efforts-though per-haps improving upon them-without substantially contribut-ing to the expansion and coordination so badly needed by thetotal community.

The “clearinghouse” function envisioned by the TaskForce is a substantial undertaking. The mission statement ofNational Council of Farmer Cooperatives mandates thatNCFC serve “as an educational resource center, central clear-inghouse and coordinator to stimulate use of those education-al and training materials and ideas that are available throughcooperatives, educational institutions, and others in all partsof the country.” The mission, along with current activitiessuch as publication of the “Educational Resources Guide” thatlists educational materials,programs, and courses, may pro-vide the institutional framework for the serious need for infor-mation exchange and resulting efficiency in cooperative edu-cation.

However, to fully satisfy the needs identified by the TaskForce, significant expansion of present activities will berequired. Funding, broad-based support, and cooperation willbe necessary.

How Can We Bring About the Necessary Changes?

Cooperative education doesn’t just happen. Somewherealong the line, someone has to decide to participate in cooper-ative education-to provide it, encourage it, or make use of it.The basic problem in cooperative education today is how toencourage those who should be involved with cooperativeeducation to make a positive decision to do so. The true issueis incentives.

In the most general terms, individuals, institutions, orcooperatives have the incentive to become involved in cooper-ative education when they perceive involvement will con-tribute toward the achievement of their goals. Out of this, we

31

define two strategies for stimulating more involvement ineducation: (1) We can establish, encourage, or promote adop-tion of goals that support cooperative education, or (2) We canalter the perception of how cooperative education can con-tribute to the achievement of existing goals.

The first strategy involves a range of possibilities includ-ing performance evaluation criteria at the personnel and orga-nizational level. For example, a cooperative manager mighthave a performance standard that specifies a cooperative edu-cation program for all new employees will be conducted.Another approach includes training or certification standardsfor holding certain positions, such as cooperative directors.For example, a cooperative could require that a newly electedboard member complete a director training program offeredby the cooperative council in that State within the first year ofhis or her term. Covenants could be attached to loans,employment agreements, or marketing agreements thatrequire some acceptable level of education or training. Anexample might be a requirement written into the terms of aloan from CoBank to qualify for a loan. The cooperativewould be required to send its board or management teamthrough an intensive cooperative education course.

Fundamental to the first strategy is explicit recognition ofthe goals of each significant party to the cooperative educa-tion process and how the process relates to those goals. Thisrepresents the “how” of getting cooperative education on thepriority list. It is the carrot on the stick. For example, theobjective of the banker is to make loans with a high probabili-ty of repayment. When an educated board increases the likeli-hood of timely loan repayment, the bank has incentive toencourage education. When new board members perceive thatcooperative education will give them more influence over thecooperative’s decisions, they will be more likely to seek train-ing. When the cooperative’s management is directed to carryout an extensive member education program, it will havemore incentive to increase investment in education.

32

The second basic strategy involves doing a better job ofrelating cooperative education activities to the existing goalsof individuals and organizations involved with cooperatives.This strategy is really the mirror image of the first. We are con-cerned with measuring the performance of cooperative educa-tion programs related to the established goals of the individu-al or organizations involved.

In the past, the contribution of cooperative education tothe goals of cooperatives and individuals involved with themhas often been widely alleged and treated as gospel truth.Today we are challenged to put some meat on those claims.Unsupported rhetoric won’t effectively sell the cooperativeeducation idea. Contemporary leaders and decisionmakerswant proof.

Managers may want proof that by educating the employ-ees, cooperative profitability will be increased. The bankermay want some concrete measure of how an educated board’sability to make sound business decisions will be improved bycooperative education. We may want to know if a young cou-ple program actually results in increased support or futureleadership development of the cooperative. Will an extensiveyouth program have a future payoff in terms of participationin cooperative activities?

In basic terms, we need tangible measures of the effect ofcooperative education programs. Many cooperatives todayview money spent on education as an expense, not an invest-ment. To change that perception, we must become capable ofspelling out-in concrete terms they will appreciate-the pay-off to that investment.

In considering these two strategies, there are two basicquestions:

1. CREATING INCENTIVES: How can we build demandfor cooperative education into the incentive structure of therelevant parties?

2. MEASURING PERFORMANCE: How can we directlymeasure the contribution of cooperative education to the goals

33

of cooperative organizations and individuals involved inthem?

A substantial dedication of public and private resourcesfor research on how we can accurately measure performanceof cooperative education with respect to various organization-al and personal goals of participants in the cooperative andcooperative education system is required. These measure-ments must be made. Then we can accurately and objectivelydemonstrate the payoff to cooperative education and the issueof creating incentives will take care of itself.

PART V. A THREE-FRONT PLAN FORSTRENGTHENING COOPERATIVE EDUCATION

The Task Force proposes a three-front plan for renewingthe cooperative education system. The plan involves con-structing a public-private partnership for strengthening aresource infrastructure for cooperative education and promot-ing its adoption. Conceptually, we must look at cooperativeeducation as a product that must be designed, developed, andsold to a specific customer base. Critical to this concept is thedevelopment of demand for cooperative education, by stu-dents, educators, and the cooperatives themselves.

FRONT I: Making the Investment

Front 1 involves the redevelopment of the resource base,materials, and human expertise for providing cooperativeeducation. The basic product must be redesigned and promo-tional materials developed to support marketing of the prod-uct. Advance funding is needed to stimulate this critical ongo-ing effort. All currently available materials must be assessed.

Update and Expand Materials Base Materials must beupdated or developed that are based on current teachingmethods and reflect contemporary images. Basic materials

34

should be adaptable to the range of cooperative organizationtypes, not limited to specific industries such as agriculture.Where appropriate, materials must be more basic and to thepoint, less focused on promotion of a philosophy, and lessdemanding of a person’s time and attention, Materials mustbecome more sophisticated to satisfy the audience. Materialsmust be flexible enough so they can be used in a variety ofsettings and educational environments, and adapted byindividual organizations to meet their specific needs.

Audiences that need particular focus are cooperativedirectors, nonfarm students and adults, and cooperativeemployees. While some good director training programs andmaterials do exist, several voids are evident, particularly atthe local and consumer cooperative levels. Materials directedat nonfarm cooperative members, potential members, and stu-dents are generally nonexistent. Materials for cooperativeemployees are often inadequate and tread lightly on purelycooperative education aspects of training.

Educate the Educators Knowledge about cooperatives andthe ability to extend the knowledge base needs to bereestablished among key educator groups throughout thecountry. New educators must be added to the ranks of thosetrained in and teaching the cooperative form of business. Acoordinated program for training small business advisors andState and county extension agents-both agricultural andnonagricultural business specialists-needs to be established.This group will be critical in future efforts for developing bothrural and urban America. They must have a workingknowledge of the cooperative as a development tool.. Theprogram must be coordinated at the national level if it is toachieve economy of scale and be effective.

Agricultural education teachers need to become bettertrained in cooperatives. Programs for earning ContinuingEducation Units in cooperative education must be expandedand promoted. Promotion and training must be expanded to

35

Y

encourage use of existing teaching packages, such as theAgricultural Cooperative Service’s “UnderstandingCooperatives.”

Educators in business and agribusiness at both the secondaryand university level need to be educated on and encouraged to incor-porate the cooperative form of business into their courses.Appropriate materials for the general business curricula mustbe made available. At the university level, interest in and con-tent of classroom teaching are greatly influenced by the con-tent of academic research conducted by university staff.Therefore, research needs to be encouraged within the busi-ness and management departments paralleling that donewithin many agricultural business and economics depart-ments. Funding for research and establishment of researchfocus groups or consortia are needed.

Performance-Related Research Research is required onhow cooperative education contributes to the achievement ofvarious organizational goals and objectives. Given thefindings of this research, promoters and advocates ofcooperative education will have a much more solid base uponwhich to make their case to the cooperative managers anddirectors, educational leaders, and other key decisionmakers.Solid research findings will allow presentation of objectivefacts. A major investment of public and private researchmoney is required to carry out this critical research.

FRONT II: Improving National Coordination

National level coordination must constantly be pursued.Without diligent attention, natural forces lead to fragmenta-tion. Leaders of organizations involved in producing and pro-viding educational materials and programs must dedicatethemselves to improving and maintaining a coordinated, inte-grated system. Certain national-level forums, such as theNational Institute on Cooperative Education and the national

36

clearinghouse for cooperative education materials and pro-grams, can serve as catalysts for bringing together variousgroups involved in cooperative education.

No existing structure brings together all components ofthe cooperative education system. The Task Force believes it isimperative that some method of communication and exchangebe devised to associate and link all cooperative educationinterests with appropriate segments of the public educationsystem.

FRONT III: Expanding the Base of Support

Cooperative education must be aggressively supportedby cooperative leaders. Supported by the tools and researchdescribed in Front I and renewed national support evidencedby Front II developments, the real marketing job can begin.

While there are many audiences and decisionmakergroups that can make a true contribution toward the encour-agement of cooperative education, the real impetus mustcome from cooperatives themselves. Unless operating cooper-atives fully believe in and support cooperative educationefforts, it is difficult to maintain the argument that cooperativeeducation is of any value. We must get the leaders of thesecritical organizations to fully embrace the concepts andimportance of cooperative education. In the future, that foun-dation should be laid early in their careers.

Cooperative managers and board chairpersons need toinvest themselves in the principles and purposes of coopera-tive education. These individuals will have the greatest influ-ence on investment and involvement by cooperatives in coop-erative education programs. They must be convinced that it isin their best interest as individuals and as organizational lead-ers to give full support to cooperative education. A generalmanager or board chair dedicated to the goals of cooperativeeducation will see that the job gets done. These individualsmust be the targets of a concentrated marketing effort by lead-

37

ers of educational organizations and institutions, bolstered bythe research findings that clarify the payoff to investment ineducation.

While there are many approaches which can be effectivein reaching managers and board chairpersons, the most effec-tive is a strong one-on-one presentation by a respected peer. Acore of managers and directors willing to serve as promotersand primary salespersons for cooperative education needs tobe identified and coordinated, each equipped with the neces-sary information and support to visit fellow managers anddirectors. Similar direct approaches need to be made to keyindividuals in positions to influence the content and directionof curricula and training programs in the universities and sec-ondary schools.

This three-front plan does not promise immediate results,but sets a course for change that will serve the needs of coop-erative education over the next 10 years. Cooperatives are inbusiness to serve the long-term needs of their members. Wemust bring that same long-term perspective to designing ourfuture cooperative education system.

38

APPENDIX I

The Cooperative Education Task Force is a joint researchproject between USDA’s Agricultural Cooperative Service(ACS) and National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC)to assess the projected needs and issues for cooperative educa-tion programs. This project combine NCFC’s implementationof two education grants-one from CENEX and another fromMS1 Insurance Foundation. It presented an opportunity tomake efficient use of time and money toward a common goal.

Identified objectives of the project were:l Evaluate printed materials, visual and electronic

teaching tools, and instructional programs widely used incooperative education;

l Study the needs for integrated learning systems toeducate members, directors, managers, students, and the gen-eral public on an individual basis;

l Evaluate the need for methodology to determine thesuccess or value of cooperative education programs to cooper-ative businesses;

l Determine the groups that require cooperative educa-tion, how to coordinate efforts of cooperative educators, andexamine appropriate delivery methods;

l Identify groups requiring cooperative education tomeet structural business changes;

l Explore methods needed to blend existing educationalprograms and materials through use of emerging technology;and

l Establish priorities to better allocate public and pri-va te research devoted to cooperative education.

Survey: The first stage of the project was a mail surveyconducted among selected cooperative and professional edu-cators to determine current practices and project future issuesin cooperative education. About 1,300 questionnaires weresent out in February 1992. They were divided into five groups:General, Cooperative Employees, Educators, Universities, and

39

State Councils. Results were sent to ACS for analysis and tab-ulation.

Focus Groups and Panel Discussions: The second stageof this project was a series of regional panel discussions dur-ing 1992.

April 20, 21 - Minneapolis, MNApril 23, 24 - San Francisco, CAMay 11,12 - Kansas City, MOMay 14,15 - Atlanta, GA

Each focus group included 20 persons selected by regionand interest area. Preliminary results of the survey were usedto identify topics and guide discussion. Regional meetingswere specifically designed to meet requirements of theCENEX grant. State cooperative councils were involved inparticipant selection as well as all other phases of the project.A special focus group met before each panel discussion focus-ing on special topics such as youth and young adult educa-tion.

Blue Ribbon Panel: Several major issues were discussedby a “blue ribbon” panel at the National Institute onCooperative Education (NICE), July 20-23, in Denver, CO.Panelists were: Curtis Anderson, Bruce Anderson, DouglasJohnson, and Carlyle Teague.

40

Focus Group and Panel Participants

Minneapolis, MNApril 20-21,1992

0. Glenn Webb (moderator)GROWMARK, Inc.Tunnel Hill, IL

Michael J. AbildtrupFarmers Cooperative Elevator CompanyIowa Falls, IA

Bruce AndersonCornell UniversityIthaca, NY

Neil AndersonAgriBank - FCBSt. Paul, MN

Joan BehrWisconsin Dairies CooperativesBaraboo, WI

Dave BelinaLand O’Lakes, Inc.Minneapolis, MN

Frank BlackburnMinnesota Association of CooperativesSt. Paul, MN

John CroftGROWMARK, Inc.Bloomington, IL

41

Robert CroppUniversity Center for CooperativesMadison,.WI

Paul DayMinnesota Department of EducationSt. Paul, MN

Dean DenhartCountrymark Cooperative, Inc.Indianapolis, IN

Everett DobrinskiSt. Paul Bank for CooperativesMakoti, ND

Ed EllisonHarvest States CooperativesElbow Lake, MN

David EricksonWisconsin Federation of CooperativesMadison, WI

Allen GerberMinnesota Association of CooperativesSt. Paul, MN

Mike GustafsonCass County Electric Cooperative, Inc.Kindred, ND

Cathy A. HamlettPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, PA

42

Ann HoytUniversity Center for CooperativesMadison, WI

Douglas JohnsonCENEXSidney, MT

Patrick O’DonnellNational Grape Co-operative AssociationWestfield, NY

Bill PerryMilk Marketing, Inc.Strongsville, OH

Brian H. SchmiesingSouthwest State UniversityMarshall, MN

Del SchmidtHarvest States CooperativesSt. Paul, MN

Susan TignerHarvest States CooperativesSt. Paul, MN

Elaine TobinSouth Dakota Farmers UnionHuron, SD

43

San Francisco, CAApril 23-24,1992

Curtis Anderson (moderator)Sunkist Growers, Inc.Van Nuys, CA

David AeiltsSouth Dakota Wheat Growers AssociationAberdeen, SD

John AnnaloroCalifornia Credit Union LeaguePomona, CA

E. Kim CoontzCenter for CooperativesDavis, CA

, Steven W. EasterBlue Diamond GrowersSacramento, CA

Richard FenwickCoBankDenver, CO

Bonnie FishTwin Pines FoundationBerkeley, CA

Valerie FosterNorth Coast CooperativeEureka, CA

44

Bob HollowayCENEX/Land O’Lakes Agronomy Co.Medical Lake, WA

David H. KirkpatrickNat’1 Economic Development & Law CenterBerkeley, CA

Gene LundquistCalcot, Ltd.Bakersfield, CA

Bill PealPendleton High SchoolPendleton, OR

Harry RolfiMid-Valley Cotton Growers, Inc.Tipton, CA

Leland H. RuthAgricultural Council of CaliforniaSacramento, CA

Robert SchererNational Cooperative Business AssociationWashington, D.C.

Jerry SiebertUniversity of California - BerkeleyBerkeley, CA

Theresa SteigPuget Consumers’ Co-opSeattle, WA

45

Hank WallaceCalifornia State UniversityChico, CA

Herschel WeeksOregon State UniversityCorvallis, OR

John WeltyCalifornia Tomato Growers AssociationStockton, CA

Karen ZimbelmanTraining & ConsultingArcata, CA

Kansas City, MOMay ll-12,1992

Michael Cook (moderator)University of MissouriColumbia, MO

Bruce BainbridgeColorado State UniversityFort Collins, CO

David G. BartonKansas State UniversityManhattan, KS

Dennis BlickCoBankWichita, KS

46

Jerry BottingerOwner of Bottinger FarmsDenton, KS

Theresa CarbreyNew Pioneer Co-op Fresh Food MarketIowa City, IA

David CarterNational Farmers UnionDenver, CO

Billy L. ConnerTexas Agricultural Cooperative CouncilAustin, TX

Charles L. CramerUniversity of MissouriColumbia, MO

Philip DukesFarmers Cooperative AssociationMarathon, IA

Kirk EdneyTexas Education AgencyAustin, TX

Robert FergusonMFA, Inc.Columbia, MO

Keith HeimFarm Service CooperativeHarlan, IA

47

Robert E. LeeKansas Farmers Service AssociationHutchinson, KS

Joseph A. LieberKansas Cooperative CouncilTopeka, KS

Jim MagnusonIowa Institute for CooperativesAmes, IA

Daryl MeyerBrown County CooperativeHiawatha, KS

Bill J. OhlemeierKansas Electric Cooperatives, Inc.Topeka, KS

Walter L. Patterson, Jr.Nebraska Cooperative CouncilLincoln, NE

Myron D. SchmidtAssociated Milk Producers, Inc.Newton, KS

Lee SchmuckerKansas Credit Union AssociationWichita, KS

Rich SipeFarmland Industries, Inc.Liberty, MO

48

Eliza StrodeOberlin Co-op BookstoreOberlin, OH

Michael TurnerUniversity of NebraskaLincoln, NE

Atlanta, GAMay 14-15,1992

Jim Loftis (moderator)Gold Kist Inc.Atlanta, GA

John L. AdrianAuburn UniversityAuburn University, AL

Ronald C. AtkinsonUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA

William R. ClaytonCoBankAtlanta, GA

Magid A. DagherUniversity of Arkansas at Pine BluffPine Bluff, AR

Carroll H. GilbertSouthern States Cooperative, Inc.Richmond, VA

49

Dunn LeDouxLouisiana FFA FoundationDenham Springs, LA

Barbara LewisClemson Extension OfficeAllendale, SC

Alan MathewsonSevananda Natural Foods Co-op GroceryAtlanta, GA

Genia McKeeHEAD Corp./Central Appalachian Peoples Federal CreditUnionBerea, KY

Thomas J. McNuttOhio Council of Cooperatives, Inc.Hilliard, OH

David 0. MillerNationwide Mutual Insurance CompanyNewark, OH

Rubert W. PrevattFlorida Southern CollegeLakeland, FL

James ReederMaryland & Virginia Milk Producers

Cooperative Association, Inc.Reston, VA

50

Donald M. RobinsonPennsylvania Council of CooperativesNew Holland, PA

Alice SmithGeorgia Department of EducationAtlanta, GA

Dave SnyderAshland High SchoolAshland, OH

Hal E. TatumNational Association of County AgriculturalAgentsAtlanta, GA

Carlyle TeagueCooperative Council of North CarolinaRaleigh, NC

W.R. Walker, Jr.Hathaway FFAIowa, LA

Lionel WilliamsonUniversity of KentuckyLexington, KY

51

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Cooperative Service

P.O. Box 96576

Washington, D.C. 200906576

Agricultural Cooperative Service (ACS) provides research,management, and educational assistance to cooperatives tostrengthen the economic position of farmers and other ruralresidents. It works directly with cooperative leaders and Federaland State agencies to improve organization, leadership, andoperation of cooperatives and to give guidance to furtherdevelopment.

The agency (1 ) helps farmers and other rural residents developcooperatives to obtain supplies and services at lower cost andto get better prices for products they sell; (2) advises ruralresidents on developing existing resources through cooperativeaction to enhance rural living; (3) helps cooperatives improveservices and operating efficiency; (4) informs members,directors, employees, and the public on how cooperatives workand benefit their members and their communities; and (5)encourages international cooperative programs.

ACS publishes research and educational materials and issuesFarmer Cooperatives magazine. All programs and activities areconducted on a nondiscriminatory basis, without regard to race,creed, color, sex, age, marital status, handicap, or national origin.

/

.